The post you are reporting:
I disagree Harry, criminal damage is a crime or more to the point, something that is deemed to be wrong by consensus. By directly affecting the health and environment of people (both locally and globally) E-On were making a decision that would infringe the negative rights of everyone. The jury came to a consensus (one shared by most of us here and the nation) that a return to developing coal fired power stations is a threat to us and future generations. The activist were essentially claiming to be protecting global negative rights (we often justifiably kill crazy dictators for the same reason, although murder is also a crime)
The government have failed to act and invest, in our interests, on yet another underpinning requirement of our nation. They have then chosen to do 'rectify' the solution with yet another 'quick fix' plan. Barry often talks, quite rightly, of the way in which this government has enjoyed a strong economy in recent year but made no economic provision for the future (now!) I view this attempt to reinstate fossil fuels as an option exactly the same. These activists, admittedly extreme, have made a stand in a country of diminishing democracy with all parties favouring the management of society over the leadership. It is no wonder electoral numbers are falling when people are no longer feeling represented.
It is the consensus of not only 12 individuals on a jury, but of most of the civilised and educated world that burning coal is no longer an option, these people just reminded our government of that, albeit in the worst way. Due to this outcome their act was therefore righteous, which is the fundamental principle of all morality and laws. This is how we have evolved a set of codes to judge what is right and wrong, and what has been right at one point in time and place may well prove to be wrong at another! The jury were expressing 'common sense' because this is exactly what common sense is, consensus!
I remember working in a shop not so long ago and the boss using the term 'you've got no common sense' to patronise younger members of staff. Actually what he meant was "that's not how I would do it." (Which was usually equally ineffective) the reason he used the term was to place some kind of consensual gravitas to his pedantic nit-picking. Barry, I find it hard to accept denial of common sense and recognition of collective minds hard to accept in the same sentence.
This decision is a reflection on the collective views of society and although instigated in the worst way a reminder that we live in a country where righteousness is recognised.